Einstein said that there is no difference between being in an accelerating frame of reference orin a gravitational field.
They are indistiguishable.
The example he gives is of someone trapped in a box pulled by a ship accelerating at 1G. For all the person knows he or she is in a box standing still, here on earth.
This is faster that conventional RAM. A PC would not be able to accept the data at that speed fast enough to store it in RAM!
The headline is obviously sensationalism.
There exist fast optical cariers but they serve purposes that are very different to what DSL lines are meant to be. These are the kind of line that connects cities together and are not to be compared to DSL.
nope the arificial gravity always fails when the ship is is almost to be destroyed. They always say "inertial dampers" (-- this is the AG) are failing. That's when everyone starts to be thrown across the bridge and over consoles.
also any impact on the ship or any acceleration is felt greatly by the crew when the inertial dampers fail.
The gravity usualy comes back quikly enough though.
Whatever you want to call it. It's money you don't have that you would have otherwize. It directly contributed to the debt.
And the government doesnt't work that way. It doesn't look at what it has for the year and say okay I can spend this much.
It can justify this by saying something like: "I will spend this money I don't have but I expect the effect of spending that money will make the economy better and in the long term It will increase my profit at lease as much as I payed."
Obviously it is hard to estimate so the decision makers often make mistakes.
You are right about the debt but I have to say it is still really frigin huge and still growing.
You exagerate wildly about the grasshopper study. But I get your point. Although I am convinced that killing the natural ressources is another kind of debt. Everything we own comes from nature, directly or indirectly. The water, the air, and the wildlife is getting in pretty poor condition. Think about the fact that your lungs are a mean to get the air into you blood and that everything that goes into the air pretty much goes directly into your bloodstream. The atmosphere is only ten kilometers deep that's not that much air.
Water can be filtered but at a high cost. Food can be mass produced to a certain degree, but there is all kind of problems that make it not sustainable.
"No government forced any "debt" on me, I chose to obtain a mortgage on my free will, and was only able to do so due to the large tax relief."
Yes it did. The tax relief is a dept the government now has. It's a dept in your name and in the name of everyone who profited from the tax relief.
Your children and everyone elses will have to pay for that debt.
Now I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Its nice that the government is subsidising basic needs like food sheltering etc... I do believe there are other places the government can cut, and have higher taxes.
But the goverment debt will have to be repayed someday in some way...
Sorry about my mispelling, english is not my first language.
Well then you could have went into a high dept yourself instead having the goverment force the dept on you. If you though that was better for your children...
3)Person C is not inocent but its not guilty until it knows about it. Its the job of company B to tell all parties: "Hey you have my code please remove it from you software. And by the way I want compensation from the ones who but the code in there.". Only if company B doesn't comply would it be in danger of litigation.
I even think that it is REQUIRED by B to try to resolve the problem BEFORE going to court. By telling A and C to remove the code. Of course if it can prove A knew it was copying copyrighted material when A did it, B could claim some damages.
I would of though that everyone would know about these things by now with all of the SCO, Growklaw etc... brouhaha
oh and IANAL but I did a project on IP law once. (Canadian IP law, but because of international agreements I think it is very similar to US laws)
You have to exist to do something damn it! How can you not see it, that existing is a prerequisite to doing something... anything! "All it proves is that I experience". If you don't exist you cannot experience something. If you experience you exist. If not, what's the "I" in "I experience"???
You're just trying to make me talk for nothing right? Youre making fun of the fact that I'm answering you aren't you?
"I can't prove to anyone that I exist, nor can they prove to me that they exist"
True, I didn't say otherwize.
"Nor can I be certain that my existence is anything but a momentary lapse of experience; it could be a figment of a larger imagination, a dream, a fluke in space/time, the fantasy of a pile of bacterialike beings; whatever."
True again but it is some form of existance nonetheless. You said: "my existance" which implies/proves/whatever that you exist.
"I can only assume that my experience that I am real is actually real."
If you assume something you have to exist to assume it. I didn't say you have to be a human being, I didn's say you have to be a physical being. I said you have to exist in some form at some point in time.
That is the best use of the word Eksaktli I have ever seen. It was so well placed. It so beautifully brought his use the word "Exactly." out of context and elegantly made it say something silly in another context. The change of spelling was just what was needed to bring up the sillyness to a perfect level. The placement at the end made it like an almost musical conclusion.
I really can't stop laughing.
If I was drinking cola it would be coming out of my nose.
Explain to me how it can merely be evidence? How can you be aware of that evidence if you don't exist? To have evidence you need to exist. To ask the question you have to exist in some form. I agree that it only proves you exist a the moment. But still I beleive it is irrefutable.
Actually this is the only thing you can prove. That you exist in some form at the precise moment you enquirer about it. Because just asking the question proves it. You have to exist to enquirer about the fact that you exist or not.
Theres a the famous quote: "I think therefore I am". I don't remember is it Descarte?
I have started such a "howdoi" project (look in my sig) for now it is on hold. I didn`t get as much example as I would have liked to get. I think I have to redesign the way I gather the examples. Anyways I`m kind of busy right now. But maybe I`ll do another try later.
But he souldn't be doing it because its good for him but because he wants too.
Personally, my interest in developing real social skills came to me when I started being interested in the arts. By "real" I mean not "geekily" analyzing people's behavior but really taking part of the social things like most people.
To me, when I was always analyzing people the way I analyze everything was my blockage at being really social. Someone once explained to me the point of art and esthetics. That made me change the way I deal with people.
He told me that the point of art is to make you feel. It is to discover the diversity of feelings that can be triggered by shapes colors sounds and senses in general. Before that I never really did things for just simple feelings rather I would use logic and analysis everywhere. Logic was just natural for me and not esthetics. When I started being interest (in my own analytical way) at the arts and esthetics I noticed it explained a lot in the behavior of people around me. I started to relate to them more and to be more social.
Now I still view arts in a more analytical way than most people do but I feel I am closer to their views. If you need the analytical part you can always included in your interest for the arts. You can read about cognitive psychology which deals a lot with interpretation of images, optical illusions etc.. You can take some philosophy classes about esthetics there are a lot of ways to keep your interests in things that helps social skills.
I think if the guy can understand why a painting brings something to ones life he may want to participate in the artistic process and start caring about his personal image.
I agree with all that you said and I want to add that the point of my message was to show that there is some place for debate in scientific theory and that the proofs are not absolute. The guy that said: "Whatever's counted as scientific 'fact' today is also due to consensus." made some sense.
I don't think your arguments said otherwise.
"The problem with this viewpoint is that, if one were to really subscribe to it, there would be no point in making plans. No reason to even live; after all, you don't know whether or not your existence is itself real, or if it will just stop in a second when the universe becomes solid Jell-O again."
I don't agree. I think one can take a more "practical" stance towards life when living it and a more theoretical when discussing science and philosophy. It's the same thing with the anti-determinists they say it can't be true because it wouldn't be practical, that people couldn't be blamed for their actions etc etc.
I think that the world likely works in a deterministic way but I don't say I'm not responsible for my actions. As a psychological, social and physicaly contained brain driven organism I am responsible. You just have to model the human being in different ways for different "pratical" situations. It's scientific as long as the models don't contradict themselves.
Ps Don't mock my use of the word truest !!!Merriam-Webster says its good !:P( I admit when I wrote it I didn't think it was good.)
Or to phrase it differently; knowing *why* something happens and knowing *how* something happens are two different things, and there is no need to know why just to be able to know how. Whether I know why gravity works the way it does or not, I can easily validate that the earths gravity is 9.8Nm/S
No what I was saying is that we dont only cannot prove how or why, but we also can't prove in an absolute manner IF the theory holds.
Gravity could change in the future. My personal opinion is that it wont, but I can't prove it.
Yes you are right this is how is done. But there is nonetheless a logic fallacy in the way that it's done. The implications that the observation A causes B implies X.
Take gravity for example, how do you prove that gravity always pull mass at 9.8 N/kg. Well following your logic we say if gravity pulls mass at 9.8 N/kg then gravity causes these objects I have here to be pulled with a force of 9.8 N/kg.
We measure the force on the object we have which confirm our hypothesis. Then we can say it is scientifically proven. (This is the scientific method).
But! Even following the scientific method we are still not sure. Maybe throughout history gravity pulled at 9.5N/kg and it gradually changed to 9.8 in say... 1743. It might be scheduled to change back in 2014. Heck the world could have been created yesterday with all of our memories and everything by a supreme being!! (I know not a very good explanation)
We can make a lot of measures in a lot of different times; we can apply statistical measures, making our theory more and more "scientific". But we can never say that it is absolutely "scientifically proven". Gravity at 9.8 can be the "best" Scientific explanation. This is totally subjective. Occam said that the simplest theory was the best. But is it really the truest?
In some scientific phenomenon we can find links of causality but not in all of them. What causes gravity? Mass? But what causes mass to create gravity? There is no explanation.
Ah! An admin..., someone with credentials can answer my question.;)
I admit I have not used wikipedia a lot but one thing I noticed is that I could modify the entries in it.
Now I was curious about that and I had the same reaction as the parent post. You say that everything gets peer reviewed many times. How does that work exactly? Does a submission need to be accepted by many people? If I make a modification does it change the knowledge base immediately? The information seemed too good to have been put in by just any users so I assumed there was some mechanism in place but I could not find any info on it.
If there isn't any mechanism do you get constantly changing text on controversial issues? Do you get confrontations where a text is written, then it gets deleted and replaced by an opponent on the issue and this happens again and again?
These are questions I would want answered to gain a little trust on the information in wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein said that there is no difference between being in an accelerating frame of reference orin a gravitational field.
They are indistiguishable.
The example he gives is of someone trapped in a box pulled by a ship accelerating at 1G. For all the person knows he or she is in a box standing still, here on earth.
yes but inertial dampers are still a kind of gravity. You did say 50G as in 50 Gravity.
I have downloaded at 400kB/s on my computer.
6000 times that is 2400MB/s
This is faster that conventional RAM. A PC would not be able to accept the data at that speed fast enough to store it in RAM!
The headline is obviously sensationalism.
There exist fast optical cariers but they serve purposes that are very different to what DSL lines are meant to be. These are the kind of line that connects cities together and are not to be compared to DSL.
nope the arificial gravity always fails when the ship is is almost to be destroyed. They always say "inertial dampers" (-- this is the AG) are failing. That's when everyone starts to be thrown across the bridge and over consoles.
also any impact on the ship or any acceleration is felt greatly by the crew when the inertial dampers fail.
The gravity usualy comes back quikly enough though.
Whatever you want to call it. It's money you don't have that you would have otherwize.
It directly contributed to the debt.
And the government doesnt't work that way. It doesn't look at what it has for the year and say okay I can spend this much.
It can justify this by saying something like: "I will spend this money I don't have but I expect the effect of spending that money will make the economy better and in the long term It will increase my profit at lease as much as I payed."
Obviously it is hard to estimate so the decision makers often make mistakes.
You are right about the debt but I have to say it is still really frigin huge and still growing.
You exagerate wildly about the grasshopper study. But I get your point. Although I am convinced that killing the natural ressources is another kind of debt. Everything we own comes from nature, directly or indirectly. The water, the air, and the wildlife is getting in pretty poor condition. Think about the fact that your lungs are a mean to get the air into you blood and that everything that goes into the air pretty much goes directly into your bloodstream. The atmosphere is only ten kilometers deep that's not that much air.
Water can be filtered but at a high cost. Food can be mass produced to a certain degree, but there is all kind of problems that make it not sustainable.
"No government forced any "debt" on me, I chose to obtain a mortgage on my free will, and was only able to do so due to the large tax relief."
Yes it did. The tax relief is a dept the government now has. It's a dept in your name and in the name of everyone who profited from the tax relief.
Your children and everyone elses will have to pay for that debt.
Now I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Its nice that the government is subsidising basic needs like food sheltering etc... I do believe there are other places the government can cut, and have higher taxes.
But the goverment debt will have to be repayed someday in some way...
Sorry about my mispelling, english is not my first language.
Well then you could have went into a high dept yourself instead having the goverment force the dept on you. If you though that was better for your children...
USA is not the only country doing technology. Why were the other countries not nearly affected as much?
Not everything is all black and white.
3)Person C is not inocent but its not guilty until it knows about it. Its the job of company B to tell all parties: "Hey you have my code please remove it from you software. And by the way I want compensation from the ones who but the code in there.". Only if company B doesn't comply would it be in danger of litigation.
I even think that it is REQUIRED by B to try to resolve the problem BEFORE going to court. By telling A and C to remove the code. Of course if it can prove A knew it was copying copyrighted material when A did it, B could claim some damages.
I would of though that everyone would know about these things by now with all of the SCO, Growklaw etc... brouhaha
oh and IANAL but I did a project on IP law once. (Canadian IP law, but because of international agreements I think it is very similar to US laws)
You have to exist to do something damn it! How can you not see it, that existing is a prerequisite to doing something... anything! "All it proves is that I experience". If you don't exist you cannot experience something. If you experience you exist. If not, what's the "I" in "I experience"???
:P
You're just trying to make me talk for nothing right? Youre making fun of the fact that I'm answering you aren't you?
I'm not talking to you anymore.
You just don't get it don't you?
"I can't prove to anyone that I exist, nor can they prove to me that they exist"
True, I didn't say otherwize.
"Nor can I be certain that my existence is anything but a momentary lapse of experience; it could be a figment of a larger imagination, a dream, a fluke in space/time, the fantasy of a pile of bacterialike beings; whatever."
True again but it is some form of existance nonetheless. You said: "my existance" which implies/proves/whatever that you exist.
"I can only assume that my experience that I am real is actually real."
If you assume something you have to exist to assume it. I didn't say you have to be a human being, I didn's say you have to be a physical being. I said you have to exist in some form at some point in time.
Maybe if they implemented Mono using Java it would speed up the development process!
That is the best use of the word Eksaktli I have ever seen. It was so well placed. It so beautifully brought his use the word "Exactly." out of context and elegantly made it say something silly in another context. The change of spelling was just what was needed to bring up the sillyness to a perfect level.
The placement at the end made it like an almost musical conclusion.
I really can't stop laughing.
If I was drinking cola it would be coming out of my nose.
really.
Explain to me how it can merely be evidence? How can you be aware of that evidence if you don't exist? To have evidence you need to exist. To ask the question you have to exist in some form. I agree that it only proves you exist a the moment. But still I beleive it is irrefutable.
Actually this is the only thing you can prove. That you exist in some form at the precise moment you enquirer about it. Because just asking the question proves it. You have to exist to enquirer about the fact that you exist or not. Theres a the famous quote: "I think therefore I am". I don't remember is it Descarte?
Yes but shipping would have cost $3 milions.
I have started such a "howdoi" project (look in my sig) for now it is on hold. I didn`t get as much example as I would have liked to get. I think I have to redesign the way I gather the examples. Anyways I`m kind of busy right now. But maybe I`ll do another try later.
Thanks for taking time to provide me with these good answers BTW.
But he souldn't be doing it because its good for him but because he wants too.
Personally, my interest in developing real social skills came to me when I started being interested in the arts. By "real" I mean not "geekily" analyzing people's behavior but really taking part of the social things like most people.
To me, when I was always analyzing people the way I analyze everything was my blockage at being really social. Someone once explained to me the point of art and esthetics. That made me change the way I deal with people.
He told me that the point of art is to make you feel. It is to discover the diversity of feelings that can be triggered by shapes colors sounds and senses in general. Before that I never really did things for just simple feelings rather I would use logic and analysis everywhere. Logic was just natural for me and not esthetics. When I started being interest (in my own analytical way) at the arts and esthetics I noticed it explained a lot in the behavior of people around me. I started to relate to them more and to be more social.
Now I still view arts in a more analytical way than most people do but I feel I am closer to their views. If you need the analytical part you can always included in your interest for the arts. You can read about cognitive psychology which deals a lot with interpretation of images, optical illusions etc.. You can take some philosophy classes about esthetics there are a lot of ways to keep your interests in things that helps social skills.
I think if the guy can understand why a painting brings something to ones life he may want to participate in the artistic process and start caring about his personal image.
So basically there IS a central authority with credentials we have to trust just like any other encylopedia.
I agree with all that you said and I want to add that the point of my message was to show that there is some place for debate in scientific theory and that the proofs are not absolute. The guy that said: "Whatever's counted as scientific 'fact' today is also due to consensus." made some sense.
I don't think your arguments said otherwise.
"The problem with this viewpoint is that, if one were to really subscribe to it, there would be no point in making plans. No reason to even live; after all, you don't know whether or not your existence is itself real, or if it will just stop in a second when the universe becomes solid Jell-O again."
I don't agree. I think one can take a more "practical" stance towards life when living it and a more theoretical when discussing science and philosophy. It's the same thing with the anti-determinists they say it can't be true because it wouldn't be practical, that people couldn't be blamed for their actions etc etc.
I think that the world likely works in a deterministic way but I don't say I'm not responsible for my actions. As a psychological, social and physicaly contained brain driven organism I am responsible. You just have to model the human being in different ways for different "pratical" situations. It's scientific as long as the models don't contradict themselves.
Ps Don't mock my use of the word truest !!!Merriam-Webster says its good !:P( I admit when I wrote it I didn't think it was good.)
Or to phrase it differently; knowing *why* something happens and knowing *how* something happens are two different things, and there is no need to know why just to be able to know how. Whether I know why gravity works the way it does or not, I can easily validate that the earths gravity is 9.8Nm/S
No what I was saying is that we dont only cannot prove how or why, but we also can't prove in an absolute manner IF the theory holds.
Gravity could change in the future. My personal opinion is that it wont, but I can't prove it.
Yes you are right this is how is done. But there is nonetheless a logic fallacy in the way that it's done. The implications that the observation A causes B implies X.
Take gravity for example, how do you prove that gravity always pull mass at 9.8 N/kg. Well following your logic we say if gravity pulls mass at 9.8 N/kg then gravity causes these objects I have here to be pulled with a force of 9.8 N/kg.
We measure the force on the object we have which confirm our hypothesis. Then we can say it is scientifically proven. (This is the scientific method).
But! Even following the scientific method we are still not sure. Maybe throughout history gravity pulled at 9.5N/kg and it gradually changed to 9.8 in say... 1743. It might be scheduled to change back in 2014. Heck the world could have been created yesterday with all of our memories and everything by a supreme being!! (I know not a very good explanation)
We can make a lot of measures in a lot of different times; we can apply statistical measures, making our theory more and more "scientific". But we can never say that it is absolutely "scientifically proven". Gravity at 9.8 can be the "best" Scientific explanation. This is totally subjective. Occam said that the simplest theory was the best. But is it really the truest?
In some scientific phenomenon we can find links of causality but not in all of them. What causes gravity? Mass? But what causes mass to create gravity? There is no explanation.
Ah! An admin..., someone with credentials can answer my question.;)
I admit I have not used wikipedia a lot but one thing I noticed is that I could modify the entries in it.
Now I was curious about that and I had the same reaction as the parent post. You say that everything gets peer reviewed many times. How does that work exactly? Does a submission need to be accepted by many people? If I make a modification does it change the knowledge base immediately? The information seemed too good to have been put in by just any users so I assumed there was some mechanism in place but I could not find any info on it.
If there isn't any mechanism do you get constantly changing text on controversial issues? Do you get confrontations where a text is written, then it gets deleted and replaced by an opponent on the issue and this happens again and again?
These are questions I would want answered to gain a little trust on the information in wikipedia.
Just wondering.